Allowed

Ankit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Apr 2024BAIL/3981/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by the accused in an FIR alleging abduction and sexual assault of a minor girl. The court noted the tentative age of the victim was around 17.5 years, her statement under Section 161 CrPC did not corroborate the prosecution story, and the accused had no criminal history. Bail was granted with standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted in FIR/ Case Crime No.475 of 2023 under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, subject to personal bonds and sureties of Rs.20,000/- each.

Ankit vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44978

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 3981 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ankit Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

No one appears on behalf of the respondent no.2 despite service of notice.

¶8

In terms of the F.I.R., a missing person report was lodged alleging therein that the daughter of the informant was enticed away by the applicant.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the victim did not support the prosecution story rather she disclosed her age as 17 and a half years and also stated that both of them had married with each other. It is further argued that there is no definite document with regard to the age of the victim which can be ascertained at the time of trial under the Juvenile Justice Act readwith the rules framed thereunder. Hence, the applicant who has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.1.2024, may be enlarged on bail.

¶10

Learned A.G.A. also opposed the prayer for bail.

¶11

Considering the fact that the tentative age of the victim is around 17 years and a half years and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which does not corroborate the prosecution story coupled with the fact that the applicant has no criminal history and is languishing in jail since 20.1.2024; and there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the applicant if enlarged on bail, would in any way adversely affect the trial and without expressing any opinion on merit, I am of the view that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

¶12

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶13

Let the applicant Ankit be released on bail in FIR/ Case Crime No.475 of 2023, under Sections 363, 366, 376-D I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act, Police Station Kachhauna, Distrtict Hardoi on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties of Rs.20,000/- each to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions :-

¶14

(a) The applicant shall execute a bond to undertake to attend the hearings;

¶15

(b) The applicant shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or suspected of the commission; and

¶16

(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶17

Order Date :- 2.7.2024/Shukla

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ram Sumer @ Sumer Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Mahesh Kumar Soni @ Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Hanuman Prasad Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, U.P. Lko.

Avneesh Kumar Nishad @ Aneesh Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Mustakeen Vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow